Multi-Criteria Evaluation Of Blockchain Platforms For Web Applications Using An Integrated Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS Approach

Rinku Raheja; Prabhash Chandra Pathak; Syed Anas Ansar

doi:10.29284/stj87q73

Authors

Rinku Raheja Department of Computer Applications, Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow, India
Prabhash Chandra Pathak Department of Computer Applications, Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow, India
Syed Anas Ansar Department of Computer Applications, Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29284/stj87q73

Keywords:

Blockchain Web Applications, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), TOPSIS, Fuzzy.

Abstract

Significant interest in blockchain based web applications has been generated by the sudden development of Web 3.0. However, this interest creates a difficult multi-criteria decision-making process for which there are no definitive answers to several key questions regarding how best to select the most suitable blockchain technology for use with decentralized web applications. These include the identification of relevant technical, economic, and ecosystem factors that will be subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. In order to address these issues, this research introduces a new hybrid fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), for evaluating and ranking the suitability of different blockchain technologies for use as infrastructure for web applications. Subjective expert evaluations of alternative blockchain platforms will be quantified by fuzzy triangular numbers representing linguistic terms that are used to represent the level of ambiguity involved when experts make subjective evaluations. The fuzzy AHP methodology will be applied to identify the relative importance of five key factors including throughput, transaction costs, security, scalability and developer ecosystem support to the selection of a blockchain platform for web application infrastructure. Additionally, the fuzzy TOPSIS methodology will be used to identify the degree of similarity between each candidate blockchain platform and the fuzzy ideal solutions. A case study that compares Ethereum, Polygon, Binance Smart Chain, Solana, and Hyperledger Fabric will be presented to demonstrate the practical application of the proposed framework. The results of this analysis will illustrate the tradeoffs involved in selecting one blockchain platform over another and provide organizations with a clear, consistent, and replicable method for selecting blockchain infrastructure for their web applications. Finally, the implications of this research for managers, its limitations, and opportunities for future research will be discussed.

References

1. Muradi, S. B. (2022). Systematic selection of blockchain platforms using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS (Master's thesis, University of Malaya (Malaysia)).

2. Pixelplex (2025). “A Comprehensive Guide to Blockchain Application Development”. Available: https://pixelplex.io/blog/blockchain-application-development-guide/

3. Farshidi, S., Jansen, S., España, S., & Verkleij, J. (2020). Decision support for blockchain platform selection: Three industry case studies. IEEE transactions on Engineering management, 67(4), 1109-1128.

4. Alshahrani, N.M., Mat Kiah, M.L., Zaidan, B.B., Alamoodi, A.H., Saif, A. (2023). A Review of Smart Contract Blockchain Based on Multi-Criteria Analysis: Challenges and Motivations. Computers, Materials & Continua, 75(2), 2833–2858.

5. Rane, N. L., & Choudhary, S. (2023). Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS as an effective and powerful Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method for subjective judgements in selection process. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 5(4), 3786-3799.

6. Kukreja, V. (2023). Hybrid fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS approach to prioritizing solutions for inverse reinforcement learning. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 9(1), 493-513.

7. Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P. A., Adams, P. R., Mentanko, J., Ha, D., & Green, S. (2020). Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: A systematic review. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102029.

8. Monrat, A. A., Schelén, O., & Andersson, K. (2024). A Taxonomy Guideline for Blockchain Platforms. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications (JoWUA), 15(2), 286-308.

9. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017, June). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends. In 2017 IEEE international congress on big data (BigData congress) (pp. 557-564). Ieee.

10. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. International journal of web and grid services, 14(4), 352-375.

11. Monrat, A. A., Schelén, O., & Andersson, K. (2019). A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities. Ieee Access, 7, 117134-117151.

12. Rodrigo, M. N. N., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., & Jin, X. (2020). Potential application of blockchain technology for embodied carbon estimating in construction supply chains. Buildings, 10(8), 140.

13. Sanka, A. I., & Cheung, R. C. (2021). A systematic review of blockchain scalability: Issues, solutions, analysis and future research. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 195, 103232.

14. Nasir, M. H., Arshad, J., Khan, M. M., Fatima, M., Salah, K., & Jayaraman, R. (2022). Scalable blockchains—A systematic review. Future generation computer systems, 126, 136-162.

15. Guo, H., & Yu, X. (2022). A survey on blockchain technology and its security. Blockchain: research and applications, 3(2), 100067.

16. Tasca, P., & Tessone, C. J. (2017). Taxonomy of blockchain technologies. Principles of identification and classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04872.

17. Strehle, E. (2020). Public versus private blockchains. BRL working paper, Blockchain Research Lab, Tech. Rep.

18. Wieninger, S., Schuh, G., & Fischer, V. (2019, June). Development of a blockchain taxonomy. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.

19. Rasolroveicy, M., Haouari, W., & Fokaefs, M. (2021, November). Public or private? a techno-economic analysis of blockchain. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (pp. 83-92).

20. Wüst, K., & Gervais, A. (2018, June). Do you need a blockchain?. In 2018 crypto valley conference on blockchain technology (CVCBT) (pp. 45-54). IEEE.

21. Bouraga, S. (2021). A taxonomy of blockchain consensus protocols: A survey and classification framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 168, 114384.

22. Xu, X., Weber, I., Staples, M., Zhu, L., Bosch, J., Bass, L., ... & Rimba, P. (2017, April). A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design. In 2017 IEEE international conference on software architecture (ICSA) (pp. 243-252). IEEE.

23. Yeow, K., Gani, A., Ahmad, R. W., Rodrigues, J. J., & Ko, K. (2017). Decentralized consensus for edge-centric internet of things: A review, taxonomy, and research issues. IEEE Access, 6, 1513-1524.

24. Labazova, O., Dehling, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2019). From hype to reality: A taxonomy of blockchain applications.

25. Hewavitharana, S., Perera, S., Jin, X., Seneviratne, K., & Masouleh, K. B. (2024). Evaluating blockchain platforms for trustworthy procurement and management of building services. In Australasian Universities Building Education Association. Conference (p. 125). Victoria University.

26. Kuo, T. T., Zavaleta Rojas, H., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2019). Comparison of blockchain platforms: a systematic review and healthcare examples. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(5), 462-478.

27. Connors, C., & Sarkar, D. (2023). Survey of prominent blockchain development platforms. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 216, 103650.

28. Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert systems with applications, 161, 113738.

29. Nădăban, S., Dzitac, S., & Dzitac, I. (2016). Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia computer science, 91, 823-831.